I would imagine that there are some basic standards.
I can't name them, but I can say which ones do and don't follow the standards I would approve of:
Romanica, Espreso, Sasxsek, D'ni, Glos, and Bitruscan most certainly don't meet the standard.
LFN, Klingon, Quenya, Sindarin, Cirth, and Tengwar may or may not. One important thing is that as far as I know, Romanica, Espreso, Sasxsek, D'ni, Glos, and Bitruscan have very few people who care at all about them, while LFN, Klingon, Quenya, Sindarin, Cirth, and Tengwar have some degree of followers (to be sure, I sometimes wish Tolkien had combined all his languages into Tolkienish --- it's too bad the Tolkien languages fanbase is sort of divided over so many different languages)
Mark
On 27/06/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Patrick Hall wrote:
On 6/27/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
I think we can put the blame on our use of language code lists which are biased towards political rather than linguistic divisions.
An important observation. In Wiktionary I keep having to beat back the argument that a wide assortment of conlangs are acceptable because they have been granted a code.
Ec
Which are those, just out of curiosity? (I imagine the list includes Esperanto and Volapük?)
Esperanto, Interlingua and Volapük have been established for some time. I suppose too that Ido and Lojban have some claim to legitimacy.
I just cleaned out a number of Latenkwa entries. Then there's Romanica, Espreso, Sasxsek, Lingua Franca Nova, Klingon, Quenya, D'ni, Glos, Bitruscan, Sindarin, Cirth, Tengwar, and probably a few others.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l